Interest groups spend heavily on S.F. races

Political groups are spending more money to influence the outcome of the seven San Francisco supervisor races than they've ever spent before.

Seven of the 11 seats are up for election Tuesday, and various groups have a keen interest in trying to wrest control of the Board of Supervisors, which is currently split seven to four in favor of more left-leaning supervisors. Mayor Gavin Newsom's best-case scenario would result in the board flipping to seven members backing his relatively more centrist positions.

And because candidates are allowed to collect direct contributions of up to only $500 from any one source, these independent interest groups are playing a significant role in funneling huge amounts of cash into their own attack ads, pro-candidate mailers and other materials.

The bulk of the independent expenditures so far have come from downtown business interests led by the San Francisco Association of Realtors, which had spent $444,920 as of Tuesday, the most recent filings available. Other business groups forking over large sums of cash include the Building Owners and Managers Association, the San Francisco Coalition for Responsible Growth and Plan C, a group that promotes home ownership.

Independent expenditure groups can spend any amount as long as they report it to the city's Ethics Commission and say which candidates their calls, mailers or television commercials supported or opposed. Records show that kind of spending has already topped the $1 million mark.

"This may be a record-setting year," said John St. Croix, head of the city's Ethics Commission.

And that doesn't include the hundreds of thousands of dollars the same groups are giving to support or oppose ballot measures or giving to each other's political committees - spending that also has no limit.

Downtown groups are giving money to defeat an affordable housing measure, support a measure to fund a Tenderloin court to prosecute quality-of-life crimes and support JROTC. Money can flow into a campaign for a citywide proposition and then be used to promote or oppose supervisor candidates, which is being done extensively by the pro-JROTC camp to oppose candidates who don't favor keeping the program in schools.

The result is a tangled web of donations and expenditures that can make it difficult to tell which interest groups are funding a campaign.

Ken Cleaveland, director of government and public affairs for the Building Owners and Managers Association, said the city is at a critical juncture and that keeping businesses, jobs and tourists is essential.

He said that ever since the 2000 election of anti-development, anti-Willie Brown supervisors, businesses have suffered. He pointed to the bans on chain stores in certain neighborhoods and the big spending on social services without solving the homeless problem.

"We have a real chance to correct the mistake that happened in 2000," he said. "The progressive majority has been very cavalier and very disdainful of the business community - they just see us as a piggy bank."

Calls to the Realtors' association, Plan C and the Committee on Jobs, a business lobbying group that is also spending a lot this campaign cycle, were not returned. A representative for the San Francisco Coalition for Responsible Growth said the group had no comment.

Supervisors' President Aaron Peskin said these groups are "spending money like drunken sailors" in an attempt to buy the election. He said it's untrue that the Board of Supervisors has been solidly anti-business, pointing out it didn't move forward with a gross-receipts tax that would have generated tens of millions a year for the city's coffers.

Tim Paulson, executive director of the San Francisco Labor Council, said his group is trying to help counter all the spending by downtown interests.

"The entire country is moving to the left, and the corporations in San Francisco are moving the city to the right," he said.

And as for the candidates themselves? Eric Mar, running in District One, has been the target of the downtown spending along with David Chiu in District Three and John Avalos in District 11. Those are also the three candidates who've benefited from the Labor Council's spending.

"My hope is voters will look carefully at anyone's mailers to educate themselves and see through all the mud and money that's being thrown around," Mar said.

By city law, candidates can't coordinate with the independent expenditure groups and therefore can't control the groups' messages.

That bothers Sue Lee, a candidate in District One who has received a lot of downtown support. She called the independent spending a double-edged sword because it doesn't always reflect her nuanced positions on, say, affordable housing.

"The zealous nature of the independent expenditures tends to exaggerate aspects of my candidacy so I think people get a distorted view," she said. "We become caricatures. It's like this isn't me, they're painting a picture of me."

Big spenders

Independent groups can spend unlimited amounts of money on local campaigns if they do it right. Here's what local groups have spent so far on various candidates.